ArticleCureus2024
Selection Bias Risk in Randomized Controlled Trials Rated as Low Bias Using Risk of Bias, Version 2 (RoB2) Tool.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative effectiveness of various combined interventions for type 2 diabetes and obesity: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
- Prophylactic Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Colorectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of electrical stimulation for postoperative rehabilitation of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Article
- Digital and Intelligent Rehabilitation Technologies in Stroke and Neurological Disorders: A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality, Gamification, and Emerging Therapeutic Platforms in Neurorehabilitation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- I2 Statistic as the Selection Bias Test: Trial Effect Estimates in Relation to Identified Bias Levels.Cureus · 2025Article
- An Updated Meta-Analysis on Long-Term Outcomes Following Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer.Cancers · 2025Review
- Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our study aimed to establish the risk of selection bias in randomized controlled trials (RCT) that were overall rated as having "low bias" risk according to Cochrane's Risk of Bias, version 2 (RoB 2) tool. A systematic literature search of current systematic reviews of RCTs was conducted. From the identified reviews, RCTs with overall "high bias" and "low bias" RoB 2 risk ratings were extracted. All RCTs were statistically tested for selection bias risk. From the test results, true positive, true negative, false positive, or false negative ratings were established, and the false omission rate (FOR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed. Subgroup analysis was conducted by computing the negative likelihood ratio (-LR) concerning RoB 2 domain 1 ratings: bias arising from the randomization process. A total of 1070 published RCTs (median publication year: 2018; interquartile range: 2013-2020) were identified and tested. We found that 7.61% of all "low bias" (RoB 2)-rated RCTs were of high selection bias risk (FOR 7.61%; 95% CI: 6.31%-9.14%) and that the likelihood for high selection bias risk in "low bias" (RoB 2 domain 1)-rated RCTs was 6% higher than that for low selection bias risk (-LR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.98-1.15). These findings raise issues about the validity of "low bias" risk ratings using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool as well as about the validity of some of the results from recently published RCTs. Our results also suggest that the likelihood of a "low bias" risk-rated body of clinical evidence being actually bias-free is low, and that generalization based on a limited, pre-specified set of appraisal criteria may not justify a high level of confidence that such evidence reflects the true treatment effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.